Pages

Monday, May 5, 2014

WHAT HAPPENED AT SAQEEFAH

Today we resume our discussion on Sheikh Turi’s piece ‘Did
The Prophet (S) Really Certify His Successor Before Demise?’ as published
in LEADERSHIP FRIDAY of November 1, 2013; and in which, under the third
subtopic titled THE PROPHETIC DEMISE AND ITS AFTERMATH, Sheikh Turi said:

“Seventy days exactly after the episode of Ghadeer, the
prophet (s) returned to the mercy of His lord and before the ritual birth and
funeral, some companions from Muhajiruun and Ansar went to the Saqifatu Bani
Sa’idah where they chose Abu Bakr as the caliph on what they referred to as
popular agreement. This remains questionable however, because how could that be
when most of the prominent companions, Ali bn Abi Talib, Abbas bn Abd
al-Mutallab, Usama bn Zayd, Zubair, Salman al-Farisy, Abu Dharr, Miqdad bn
al-Aswad, Ammar bn Yassir, Hudhaifa bn al-Yamany, Khuzaima bn Thabit, Barra’ bn
Azib, Abu Kaab, Abu Ayyub al-Ansary and Jabir bn Saad, among others were
absent? Imam Ali said on the acclamation: By Allah, ibn Abi Quhafa has got it!
And he knows that my position regarding the caliphate is like that of the pole in
relation to the millstone! The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never
reach me! Saad ibn Ubada, a prominent companion from Medina attacked Abu Bakr
and Umar on the day of Saqifa, trying hard to keep them away from the
caliphate, but could not succeed being very sick. After witnessing some of his
friends paying homage to the latter he said to him “By Allah, I shall never pay
homage to you until I cast my last arrow at you and pierce you with my lance,
and attack you with my sword, with all the power in my hand, and fight you with
and all the members of my family and clan. By Allah even if all the jinns (invisible
beings) and the human beings gathered to support you, I will never acclaim you
until I meet my Lord”. He never prayed with them, never sat in their company,
never performed pilgrimage with them until he died in Syria during the
caliphate of Umar. Everything is documented regarding the incident, including
its contradictory and paradoxical nature.”

Intellectual honesty dictates that a writer should state
historical events truthfully, and give reference of his sources, where
controversial issues are involved. These two ingredients of honest narrative
are absent in the above subtopic of Sheikh Turi’s article.

Saqeefatu Bani Saa’idah was an old assembly hall, a courtyard in Madeenah
where the people used to discuss and resolve their crucial problems. Thus,
after the Messenger (SAW) ‘returned to the mercy of His’ Lord, ‘some
companions from’ the Ansar converged in this assembly hall with the
intention of electing Sa’ad ibn Ubadah, and declaring war on any tribe
which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansar were even ready to wage war
on the Muhajirs. But Sheikh Turi made it appear as if there was a conspiracy
hatched among ‘some companions from Muhajiruun and Ansar’ to delude
other more ‘prominent companions’ by choosing ‘Abu Bakr as the caliph
on what they referred to as popular agreement.’ No, the meeting was meant
to be for the Ansar, at the peak of the confusion that befell the Ummah due to
the demise of Allah’s Apostle (SAW); they gathered for the declaration of their
own Caliphate, which, if they had succeeded, would have led every other tribe
to choose its own leader. The prevalence of contending claimants to the
Caliphate would have meant the resurrection of continual strife and civil wars
of the time of ignorance.

Moreover, the Ansar went as far as saying that: “In the
event that they refuse to accept our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-Madeenah
at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly
protested against this attitude, and this led to a dispute and pandemonium of a
serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansar seemed possible.

That was what the meeting at Saqeefah would have been but for
the timely intervention of Abu Bakr and Umar (RA).

“O Son of Khattab” a
man called on Umar (RA), “pray step out for a moment.”

Umar (RA) told him to leave them alone and go away as they
were busy in arranging for the burial of the Prophet (SAW). The man insisted
that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqeefatu
Bani Saa’idah, and – as the situation was grave – it was necessary that he
(Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something
that would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr, “Let us go.”

Imam at-Tabary, yes, the same scholar that Sheikh Turi said ‘was
considered the chief interpreter of the noble Qur’an’, has captured this
incident in The History of at-Tabary, Vol.10, p.3, where he said:

“Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at
Saqeefah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who
was in the building… [Umar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr
sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s
body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has
happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to
him…”

Therefore, Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) had to go. This was an
important and urgent matter, an emergency, a national crisis. They took along
with them Abu Ubaidah (RA), another Muhajir. Needless to say that these
three were among the ten companions enlisted for admission into Paradise by the
Messenger of Allah (SAW). Of course, the intervention of such influential
personages was certain to douse the flames of civil war and dissension.

It is plain from the above that Abu Bakr and those with him
went to Saqeefah as peacekeepers, and not as a band planning to grab the
Caliphate for themselves. Their mission was to caution the Ansar on the dangers
of exposing the nascent Ummah to internal quarrels and civil war. If Abu Bakr were
preparing himself for the Caliphate, surely he would have gone to that meeting
with more than two people. It is absurd to ascribe political motive to the
mission of these three Muhajirs to a flood of belligerent Ansars who had
contrived to make one of them their leader.
That would be a political suicide. They were clearly outnumbered.
How was it possible for Abu Bakr with only two supporters stand against Sa’ad
ibn Ubadah who had a whole assembly of Ansar as his supporters?

Sheikh Turi’s ‘prominent companions’ were not there
because Abu Bakr did not go to Saqeefah entertaining the hope of becoming the Caliph;
otherwise, he would have gone with many of his supporters to bolster his
chances. His mission was to counsel the Ansar, and to save the Ummah from disintegration.

Ali (RA) was absent for the same reason that Abu Bakr refused
answering Umar’s initial invitation – namely caring, and preparing the
Prophet’s funeral rites; and for the fact that no election was envisaged in the
whole affair of Saqeefah. Their purpose was to avert the impending disaster of
civil war from befalling the Muslim community emanating from Ansar’s
announcement of pledging the oath of allegiance to a leader of their own.

The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.2 reported the following
speech by Sa’ad ibn Ubadah during the Saqeefah meeting:

“Company of the Ansar! You have precedence in religion and
merit in Islam that no other tribe of the Arabs can claim. Muhammad remained
ten-odd years in his tribe, calling them to worship the Merciful and to cast
off idols and graven images, but only a few men of his tribe believed in him,
and they were able neither to protect the Apostle of Allah, nor to render his
religion strong, nor to divert from themselves the oppression that befell them
all.

“Until, when He intended excellence for you (O Ansar); He
sent nobility to you and distinguished you with grace. Thus, Allah bestowed
upon you faith in Him and in His Apostle, and protection for him and his
companions, and strength for him and his faith, and Jihad against his enemies.
You (O Ansar) were the most severe people against his enemies who were not from
among you, so that the Arabs became upright in Allah’s Cause, willingly or unwillingly…through,
you (O Ansar) Allah made great slaughter (of the infidels) in the earth for His
Apostle, and by your swords (O Ansar) the Arabs were abased for him. When Allah
took (the Prophet) to Himself, he was pleased with you (O Ansar) and consoled
by you.

“So keep control of this matter (i.e. the Caliphate) to
yourselves, to the exclusion of others, for it is yours and yours alone.”

Apparently, the above speech praised the Ansar, and demeaned
the Muhajirs. Umar (RA) wanted to respond, but Abu Bakr (RA), knowing the fiery
temper of the former, prevented him. There was enough tension in the hall; given
his no-nonsense disposition, if allowed to speak, Umar would have made matters
worse. Therefore, Abu Bakr addressed the gathering:

“O Ansar! You deserve all the qualities that you have
attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the
Quraish” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)

Abu Bakr (RA) acknowledged Ansar’s contribution to the
establishment of Islaam, and how they took in the Messenger of Allah (SAW)
together with the believers along with him, helped them and gave them abode.
But he also urged the Ansar to call to mind the fact that the Muhajirs were the
first to profess faith in Allah, and to support His Messenger (SAW); that the
Muhajirs suffered hunger, thirst, and rejection, while remaining firm with
Allah’s Messenger through that tribulation and adversity; they did not alter in
the least. When persecution and torture became more than flesh and blood could
stand, they forsook all their worldly possessions and loved ones to immigrate
with the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Abu Bakr also reminded the Ansar of the saying
of Allah’s Messenger (SAW) that leadership is with the Quraish after him. Then
he said:

“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of
the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the
interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil
war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not
covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of
these.”

A counter-offer from the Ansar, “Oh Quraish!” they said, “There
should be one ruler from us one from you.”

Of course, that was a precarious situation. Having two
caliphs will only open the door for multiple leaders of the Ummah, as I have
alluded to earlier. Nothing would have stopped other tribes from choosing their
own caliph. When people’s voices grew loud and there was disputation, at the
peak of this meeting, Umar perceived this danger, so he moved to pre-empt the
pledging of allegiance by anybody, because if that happened, resolving this
matter would have been impossible. Umar said to Ansar:

“Oh Ansar! Do you not know that the Messenger of Allah (SAW)
commanded Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer? Who among you would feel
comfortable putting himself above Abu Bakr?”

The Ansar answered, “Allah forbid that we should put
ourselves above Abu Bakr.”

Then Umar hastened to say to Abu Bakr, “Stretch forth your
hand.”

So Abu Bakr stretched forth his hand and Umar swore
allegiance to him, and the Muhajirs swore allegiance to him, then the Ansar also,
did so.

The emergence of Abu Bakr as Caliph, therefore, was not as
Sheikh Turi tried to portray, as something that ‘remains questionable’ and
of “contradictory and paradoxical nature.”

There was nothing questionable, contradictory or paradoxical,
whatever that means, in what these honourable men had done. If anything, they
should be adorned with garlands, and handsomely recompensed for saving this
Ummah from the tribulation of disunity and civil strife!

Actually I thought Sheikh Turi would prove that the
Companions argued for ‘Ali (RA) because the Messenger of Allah had appointed
him his heir apparent, as the Shi’ah claimed, in Ghadeer Khum. Alhamdu lillah,
I have dealt with that issue, and established that there was no such
pronouncement by Allah’s Messenger in favour of ‘Ali (RA). To my surprise,
Sheikh Turi has not repeated that argument in this Saqeefah incident. He was
content with what he described as ‘questionable’ and ‘contradictory’
process that saw Abu Bakr’s ascension to the Caliphate.

It did not make any sense that the companions forgot an issue
that was mentioned by the Messenger of Allah on ‘Ali (RA) being the leader of
Muslims after him; an issue that was witnessed, according to Sheikh Turi, by ‘no
fewer than seventy thousand pilgrims’ who ‘had gathered from different
places’ after the Farewell pilgrimage. This multitude should have been able
to remember that the Caliphate was the exclusive right of ‘Ali (RA) due to the
Prophet’s purported nomination of the former at Ghadeer Khum.

Sheikh Turi further said, “Imam Ali said on the
acclamation: By Allah, ibn Abi Quhafa has got it! And he knows that my position
regarding the caliphate is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone!
The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never reach me!”

Sheikh Turi did not mention the source of the above incident,
but a shi’ah website, www.al-islam.org informed me that this quotation of
Ali (RA) was from shi’ah’s most authentic book,Nahj al-Balagha (Way of Eloquence), Sharh, Muhammad
Abduh, vol 1 p 34; it contains sermons and letters of Ali (RA). But I found,
within this book, other quotations credited to Ali (RA) which were not in
agreement with Sheikh Turi’s point regarding Ali’s claim to the Caliphate. Let
me site three examples:

1-"By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor
any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me
for it." p.179

2-"Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to
Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were
present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of
allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to
oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned
it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed
that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of
Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to
adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with
others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as
he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him
wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism."

3-When people decided to Swear allegiance to Ali after
the murder of `Uthman, he said: "Leave me and seek some one else. We are
facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can
stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces
are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you
as I know and would not care about whatever one may say or abuse. If you leave
me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey
whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a
counsellor than as chief." p.91

The above words were not like those uttered by one who viewed
himself as the sole heir to the Caliphate.

On these endless names of companions listed by Sheikh Turi as
being absent during Abu Bakr emergence as Caliph, I keep wondering why a Shi’ah
scholar will bother to use “non-Muslims” to support a position.
According to Shi’ah, all but three companions became non-Muslims after the
demise of Allah’s Messenger because they pledged allegiance, not to Ali but to
Abu Bakr and company. Let me give two examples:

1-“After the death of the Prophet (SAW), all his
companions gave up Islam except three. These were Miqdaad, Abu Dharr and
Salmaan.” (Furu’ al-Kaafi, vol. 2, p. 115)

2-“After the death of the Prophet all of his companions
became disbelievers except three. They were Miqdaad, Abu Dharr and Salmaan.” (Hayaat
al-Qulub, vol. 2, p. 600)

After the meeting at Saqifah Banu Sa’idah…(and) the burial of
the Prophet, Abu Bakr took the oath of allegiance from the general population
and then rose to deliver his (inauguration) address…that was the day when
33,000 Companions pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.

The contents of this blog are from my weekly column with LEADERSHIP Friday Newspapers. Therefore, the date of publication here may vary from that on which the original piece appeared on the Leadership column.